Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

You can ship to me and I'll hold them for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AG Becerra has requested the Ninth Circus Court to have an "En Banc" review of the recent decision in Duncan v. Becerra.

 

Normally, this would require a re-hearing with all of a court's judges.  However, the Ninth is so bloated* - something like forty seven judges - that it has "special rules."  With the Ninth, an "en banc" review can be done with TEN RANDOMLY SELECTED JUDGES.  

 

This could end poorly.  I'm usually not a pessimistic type, but hey... this IS California.  

 

*Remember... a certain political party wants to do this with the SCOTUS.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

AG Becerra has requested the Ninth Circus Court to have an "En Banc" review of the recent decision in Duncan v. Becerra.

 

Normally, this would require a re-hearing with all of a court's judges.  However, the Ninth is so bloated* - something like forty seven judges - that it has "special rules."  With the Ninth, an "en banc" review can be done with TEN RANDOMLY SELECTED JUDGES.  

 

This could end poorly.  I'm usually not a pessimistic type, but hey... this IS California.  

 

*Remember... a certain political party wants to do this with the SCOTUS.

 

 

So Brownells cancelled Crazy Gun's order because of a review? I don't get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad Hardpan explained this, because I was very confused. I could not see what a legal quorum (?) had to do with Brownells.

 

But he explained that it was the 9th.

 

The Ninth, if my rememberer is working correctly, I just struck down California's magazine capacity ban as being unConstitutional. You could now have magazines that held in excess of ten rounds. And before jumping up and down in glee, californios all over the state rushed to order magazines that had previously been illegal but now were legal. Then they jumped up and down in glee.

 

Now it seems as if the Ninth is attempting to change its collective mind. And the Brownells is holding off on filling magazine orders until the 9th either does or does not re-illegalize them.

 

Is my understanding of this correct?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly correct Alpo.  The earlier ruling stated that the ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was unconstitutional.  However the ruling needed to be followed by a mandate.  The court held off on the mandate until after the time period in which the state of Ca. could file a request for an en banc review.  During this "waiting period", Brownells simply put orders on hold waiting for the release.  Of course CA filed for the en banc which may take some time, so Brownells cancelled existing orders that are still illegal to ship to CA, which is the smart thing to do.  If the en banc comes out good for us, I will place an order again... of course that could be years from now, if ever....

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Alpo said:

I'm glad Hardpan explained this, because I was very confused. I could not see what a legal quorum (?) had to do with Brownells.

 

But he explained that it was the 9th.

 

The Ninth, if my rememberer is working correctly, I just struck down California's magazine capacity ban as being unConstitutional. You could now have magazines that held in excess of ten rounds. And before jumping up and down in glee, californios all over the state rushed to order magazines that had previously been illegal but now were legal. Then they jumped up and down in glee.

 

Now it seems as if the Ninth is attempting to change its collective mind. And the Brownells is holding off on filling magazine orders until the 9th either does or does not re-illegalize them.

 

Is my understanding of this correct?

 

A single US District Court judge entered the original injunction, suspending the CA law against "large capacity" magazines, back in 2018.

 

The initial appeal was heard by a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit, randomly chosen from among the 48 judges in the Circuit.  The panel upheld the decision below.

 

 The CA AG then requested an en banc hearing, in which 10 randomly selected judges and the Chief Judge will make up the panel.  That hearing is pending.

 

The problem seems to be that the original judge stayed his order pending final appeal; since the appeal process is not yet final (and may not be until the en banc outcome is appealed to and decided by the Supreme Court), the original ban has not yet been lifted, and retailers who took orders may be jumping the gun.

 

LL

 

PS CGB beat me to it; didn't see his reply while I was typing.

 

LL

 

PPS:  I'd love to be a bug on the wall in the Chief Judge's office when the 10 judges are "randomly" selected....

 

LL

Edited by Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

"randomly" selected

yes... and everybody who believes this will truly be a "random" selection please raise your hands....

 

I'm not seeing any hands up... :blink:

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428 said:

yes... and everybody who believes this will truly be a "random" selection please raise your hands....

 

I'm not seeing any hands up... :blink:

 

 

 

What's the factual basis for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

 

What's the factual basis for this?

 

Factual basis?  Factual basis of the court's makeup?  Factual basis of the "en banc" process?  Factual basis of the "random selection" which has not yet happened?

 

First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is comprised of 47 Judges:

     28 Circuit Judges 

     18 Senior Circuit Judges

       1 Chief Judge Of the Court (Sidney Thomas, a Clinton appointee)

 

Of these, 23 were appointed by Democrat presidents (nine by Clinton)

                 24 were appointed by Republican presidents (ten by Trump...  surprisingly, only a couple of these replaced Democrat appointees)

 

In an "En Banc" hearing, ten judges are randomly* selected.  NO Senior Circuit Judges are allowed to participate unless they served on the original three-judge panel. In this case, none of the original panel were Senior Judges [of the Ninth Circuit Court]; the original panel judges were Consuelo Callahan (G. W. Bush appointee) and Kenneth Lee (Trump appointee) voting to invalidate the ban, with the dissenting vote being Barbara M. G. Lynn.  Interestingly, Lynn (a Clinton appointee) is NOT a member of the Ninth Circuit Court; rather, she is the Chief Judge Of The United States District Court For The Northern District of Texas.  Rules require that a majority of the panel be members of the court; essentially, Judge Lynn was a "guest judge."

 

I'm wondering if Judge Lynn could serve on the En Banc hearing.

 

*In other case assignments, judges are "randomly selected" by computer.  I have no idea if it's the same for En Banc selections.  Perhaps one of our legal types might know?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Helluva way to run a judicial system. 
 

Still, it’s better than anything other countries have come up with.

 

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had quite a few cases in the 9th Circuit over the years. I never had any reason to believe there was anything 'rigged' about their panel assignment system. Hence my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

I had quite a few cases in the 9th Circuit over the years. I never had any reason to believe there was anything 'rigged' about their panel assignment system. Hence my question.

 

Red, are you an attorney?

 

If you are - or heck, even if you're not! - can you address my wondering about the En Banc selection process, and whether Judge Lynn can return and participate?  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

 

Red, are you an attorney?

 

If you are - or heck, even if you're not! - can you address my wondering about the En Banc selection process, and whether Judge Lynn can return and participate?  :huh:

 

I am. Fully retired for three years, but I keep my license active for old time's sake.

 

I first argued a case in the 9th Circuit in 1978, in the old 9th Circuit courthouse in San Francisco, a splendid building that was closed for decades after an earthquake. I don't know if it has ever been restored.

 

I had a couple other cases there back then, then none for many years until the last few years of my career, when I had several. I never had a case reheard en banc, which is a pretty rare thing to happen.

 

I don't really know anything about the panel selection process, except that it is said to be random, and in all my cases, on both sides of the Bar, so to speak, I never heard the integrity of that process questioned. So my response to the post above was to the suggestion that the process was in fact non-random, and thus I asked the poster to inform us of the basis of his assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No facts, only conjecture based on past performance.  For example, the magic "guest judge" in the previous hearing of a panel of 3 judges.  When politics are involved, nothing is truly random.

 

Have to put my aluminum foil hat back on so "they" cant read my thoughts.... Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get me. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.